(영문) 광주지방법원 2017.11.23. 선고 2016구합13151 판결

(a) On November 3, 2015, the full-time course entrustment, two years restriction on recognition (from October 30, 2015 to October 29, 2017), two years (from October 30, 2015 to October 29, 2017), ② the relevant course (human resource manager (math) manager, human resource manager, one year from October 30, 2017 to October 29, 2018), three years from restriction on entrustment and recognition of human resource manager (from October 30, 2017 to October 29, 2018), ③ additional collection of training fees of KRW 89,795,80, and KRW 89,795,80.

(b) Revocation of designation of a workplace skill development training establishment on December 1, 2015;

2. To revoke both the preliminary claims and the dispositions described in paragraph 1.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The plaintiff's status

The plaintiff is operating the B Education Center designated by the Minister of Employment and Labor pursuant to Article 28 (1) of the Act on the Development of Workplace Skills of Workers (hereinafter referred to as the "Vocational Skills Development Act").

(No. 7)

B. Operation of each course of the instant case

1) Pursuant to Article 19(1) of the Vocational Skills Development Act, the Plaintiff was recognized as three of the Human Resources Manager Courses (hereinafter “each of the instant courses”) by the Minister of Employment and Labor as one of the Account Joint Training Courses (No. 12, No. 2) (No. 12, No. 2, Sept. 18, 2012).

- Human resource manager 1 of March 29, 2013

- Human resource manager 2 on March 29, 2013

2) From September 22, 2012 to June 28, 2014, the Plaintiff provided a lecture for the subjects included in the course for certified lifelong education teachers, other than the instant courses (Evidence B No. 10, 11, 12).

3) The Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for payment of training expenses for each of the instant courses from February 4, 2013 to July 11, 2014, received KRW 89,795,880 in total from the Defendant as training expenses for each of the instant courses (Evidence B No. 15). The details of the instant disposition are as follows.

1) The expiration of the term of validity of recognition of each of the instant courses and the period of recognition expires on September 17, 2013. On September 2, 2014, the Defendant revoked recognition of the course of the Human Resources Managers 1 and 2 pursuant to Article 19(2)5 of the Vocational Skills Development Act on the ground that the Plaintiff violated the details recognized and operated the Human Resources Managers 1 and 2 courses.

2) A criminal judgment against the representative director C becomes final and conclusive

The representative director C of the Plaintiff was indicted on the ground that he received a total of KRW 89,795,880 as training expenses for each of the instant courses, even though he/she participated in the subjects included in the lifelong education program, not in the instant courses, while operating each of the instant courses. It was found that he/she was guilty of all such criminal facts. C was sentenced to a fine of KRW 7 million on May 10, 2017 (No. 2016No2316 (Evidence 13), and this judgment became final and conclusive (Evidence 13).

3) On October 29, 2015, the Defendant rendered the following dispositions against the Plaintiff. However, the Defendant did not revoke the recognition of each process of this case on the grounds that the validity period of recognition of each process of this case has expired or the recognition has been revoked (No. 5).

A person shall be appointed.

B) On December 1, 2015, the Defendant rendered the following dispositions to the Plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as “each of the instant dispositions”) (including dispositions as of October 29, 2015 and dispositions as of December 1, 2015).

A person shall be appointed.

C. Lawsuit of this case

On February 1, 2016, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission. However, on August 23, 2016, the Central Administrative Appeals Commission rendered a decision to dismiss the Plaintiff’s request for administrative appeal (Evidence A 12). On September 12, 2016, the Plaintiff received the said decision and filed the instant lawsuit on December 2, 2016, within the filing period.

2. The plaintiff's assertion

Each of the dispositions of this case shall be null and void or cancelled as it is deemed below.

A. Non-existence of grounds for disposition

In the course of the instant case, it is true that the Plaintiff took a lecture for the subjects included in the process of certified lifelong education teachers, not in the course of the instant case. However, the same is true for the course of the instant case and the content of the course for certified lifelong education teachers. Moreover, the Plaintiff actually took a part in the course of the instant case to the trainees participating therein. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Plaintiff conducted an account-based joint training course in violation of the details recognized by the Minister of Employment and Labor or received training fees

B. Ab. Abuse of discretionary power is highly unfavorable to the Plaintiff, compared to the public interest that the Defendant intended to achieve through each of the instant dispositions, and thus, each of the instant dispositions is unlawful by abusing and abusing the bounds of discretionary power.

3. Related statutes;

It shall be as listed in the attached Form.

4. Determination

A. As to the non-existence of grounds for disposition

1) Contents of the relevant provisions

A) The State or a local government which intends to conduct workplace skill development training pursuant to Articles 12 and 15 of the Act on the Grounds for Entrustment of Workplace Skill Development (Vocational Skills Development Act) may conduct workplace skill development training upon entering into an entrustment contract with a person determined by Presidential Decree (Article 16(1)).

The Minister of Employment and Labor may subsidize workers for expenses incurred in attending workplace skill development training courses recognized by the Minister of Employment and Labor pursuant to Article 19 (Article 17 (1) 1) in order to support workers' autonomous workplace skill development.

Any person who intends to operate an account-combined training course for which workers may receive subsidies for training expenses pursuant to Article 17 (1) 1 shall obtain recognition from the Minister of Employment and Labor for the relevant account-combined training course (the main sentence of Article 19 (1)).

B) The Minister of Employment and Labor shall revoke the recognition of a training course where a person who has obtained the recognition of a training course combined with an account pursuant to Article 19(1) has received a training course by fraud or other improper means, and may order correction or revoke the recognition of the training course (Article 19(2)2 and 5); and may order correction or revoke the recognition of the training course where the person whose recognition has been revoked pursuant to Article 19(2) of the Act, for a person whose recognition has been revoked pursuant to Article 16(1) and the recognition under Article 19(2) within five years from the date of revocation (Article 19(3)).

C) Standards for restrictions on consignment recognition of training courses for the development of account skills (Article 19(5) of the Vocational Skills Development Act, Delegation of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act) (Article 19(3) of the Vocational Skills Development Act and other necessary matters shall be prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Employment and Labor.

- (Standard) A person recognized as an account-based training course pursuant to Article 19(1) of the Vocational Skills Development Act shall have two years for entrustment and recognition restriction if the expenses subsidized by fraud or other improper means are not less than 20,000 won, and a two-year period for entrustment and recognition restriction of all the courses.

(d) Grounds for revocation of designation of the designated occupational training establishment and disposition standards

- (Reasons) The Minister of Employment and Labor may revoke the designation of a designated occupational training establishment under Article 28 of the Vocational Skills Development Act, where it is subject to restrictions on recognition under Article 19(3) of this Act (Article 31(1)3 and Article 29 subparag. 9 of the Vocational Skills Development Act);

- (Standards) The detailed criteria for revocation of designation pursuant to Article 31(1) shall be prescribed by Presidential Decree, taking into account the grounds for the disposition and the degree of violation (Article 31(2) of the Vocational Skills Development Act), and the authority to take measures may revoke the designation of a designated vocational training facility under Article 28 of the Vocational Skills Development Act, where the period of a disposition to restrict recognition of entrustment of the whole course that was received pursuant to Article 19(3) of the same Act exceeds one year (attached Table 1

E) The Minister of Employment and Labor may order a person whose recognition was revoked pursuant to Article 19(2) of the Vocational Skills Development Act to return the amount of subsidies received by fraud or other improper means (Article 56(2)1 of the Vocational Skills Development Act), and where the amount of subsidies received by fraud or other improper means is at least one million won, an additional amount may be collected (Article 56(3)1(b) of the Vocational Skills Development Act; Article 50 of the Enforcement Decree of the Vocational Skills Development Act; Article 22(1)2 of the Enforcement Rule of the Vocational Skills Development Act).

2) Specific determination

“False or other unlawful means prescribed by Article 19(2) of the Vocational Skills Development Act” means all the active and passive acts that a person who is not eligible to receive expenses generally leads to the fact that he/she is disqualified or that he/she is not qualified, and that may affect the decision-making on subsidization of expenses. According to the relevant provisions, “expenses” means expenses incurred by a business owner, etc. who is recognized as an account joint training course for conducting workplace skill development projects, which are provided by the Minister of Labor according to the number of trainees, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Du3777, Jun. 13, 2013).

In light of the following circumstances revealed through the evidence duly admitted and examined, the Plaintiff operated the courses of this case in violation of the contents recognized by lecture subjects included in the course for certified lifelong education teachers, not in the course of this case. Therefore, even if the Plaintiff was not entitled to receive training expenses for each of the courses of this case, he/she received training expenses from the Defendant, and such series of actions violated the contents recognized to the extent that they violated the purpose of training, such as the content of training, by fraud or other improper means, to the extent that they violated the purpose of training.

of this state, it can be seen as such.

A) Article 14(2) of the former Regulations on Implementation of Workplace Skill Development Accounts (amended by the Ministry of Employment and Labor No. 2014-1, Jan. 11, 2014; hereinafter “instant provision”) for the purpose of establishing training courses necessary to support workplace skill development training for workers pursuant to Article 19 of the Workplace Skill Development Act provides that a regular curriculum established for the purpose of granting an academic degree at a junior college or higher educational institution under the Higher Education Act, etc. may not be recognized as a training course (Article 3). However, the curriculum for certified lifelong education is included in a regular curriculum established for the purpose of granting an academic degree at a junior college or higher educational institution under the Higher Education Act. Therefore, the Plaintiff could not be recognized by the Minister of Employment and Labor if the Plaintiff applied for recognition of a training course for workplace skill development training for the process of certified lifelong education teachers. In fact, the Plaintiff applied for recognition of an account-based training course for the process of certified lifelong education teachers on July 12, 2012.

B) On June 28, 2015, the Plaintiff’s representative C also stated that, in order to enable students who attend the lifelong education course at the police station to receive training fees, the instant courses were recognized as an account-combined training course, and that the Plaintiff was able to accumulate training records necessary for promoting other projects in the future (No. 12).

C) The purpose of each course of this case is to train personnel management specialists who can secure core human resources who adapt to the management environment. On the other hand, the purpose of the course of the course is to build a lifelong education model to realize the ideology of the lifelong learning society where lifelong education is directed, and its purpose is entirely different, and there is an essential difference in the training content of the two courses (see evidence 23). Thus, it may be deemed that the strong significance of the subjects included in the course of the course of this case in the course of the course constitutes a case where the training is operated in violation of the contents recognized to the extent that it violates the purpose of the training as to the important matters of the training course, such as the content of the training. As to the assertion of abuse of discretionary power,

1) Whether a punitive administrative disposition deviates from or abused the scope of discretion under the social norms ought to be determined by comparing and balancing the degree of infringement on public interest and the disadvantages that an individual may be seen as an administrative disposition by objectively examining the content of the act of violation as the grounds for the disposition, the public interest to achieve the purpose of the disposition, and the various circumstances in compliance with the said disposition. If the criteria for a punitive administrative disposition are prescribed in the form of Ordinance of the Ministry, it is nothing more than that prescribed in the administrative agency’s rules for handling internal affairs, and it is not effective externally to the public and court, and it shall be determined in accordance with the contents and purport of the relevant statutes, not only the above criteria for disposition but also with the above criteria for disposition. Therefore, it cannot be said that the pertinent disposition is legitimate merely because it meets the above criteria for disposition. However, unless the above criteria for disposition do not conform with the Constitution or laws, or unless there are reasonable grounds to believe that a punitive administrative disposition in accordance with the above criteria for disposition is significantly unreasonable in light of the content and purport of the relevant statutes and the content of the relevant statutes (see, etc.).

2) In light of the following circumstances revealed through the evidence duly adopted and examined, it is difficult to view that the instant disposition was in violation of equity or excessive disposition, and thus far as it considerably lacks validity under the social norms, it is difficult to view that it exceeded or abused the scope of discretion. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is rejected.

A) It cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff’s illegality is less than that of receiving training costs equivalent to KRW 90,00,00, even though the Plaintiff operated an account-based joint training course in violation of the contents recognized by lecture the subjects included in the process of certified lifelong education teachers, which are not the instant courses, while operating each of the instant courses.

B) The Defendant issued each of the instant dispositions in accordance with the criteria prescribed in Article 25-2 [Attachment Table 1] of the Enforcement Decree of the Vocational Skills Development Act, Article 6-3 [Attachment Table 1-2] of the Enforcement Rule of the Vocational Skills Development Act, and Article 22-1 (1) 2, and did not find any circumstance that the above criteria are objectively unreasonable or unreasonable.

5. Conclusion

Since the plaintiff's claim is not correct, all of them are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges

The Superintendent of the Supreme Court;

Judges Park Byung-il

Judge Dok-un

Note tin

(i) Support for autonomous vocational skills development by those prescribed by the Minister of Employment and Labor, who are employed in preparation for the unemployed, etc. or new start-up;

In order to subsidize the costs of workplace skill development training, vocational skills development training courses for which training is paid (Article 18 of the Vocational Skills Development Act)

Type 1, 2

2) The first instance court was sentenced to 8 months of imprisonment with prison labor and 2 years of suspended sentence. C confession of all the above criminal facts from the first instance court to the appellate court.

had been.